11/5/2016

Not a surprise if you’ve been paying attention, but still: yet more evidence that Trump is actually a pro-amnesty shill, from CNN:

Donald Trump expressed support for “amnesty” for some undocumented immigrants during a 2011 interview on Fox News.

In an appearance in November of 2011 on “Fox and Friends,” Trump defended former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, then a candidate for the Republican nomination, who was being criticized by his opponent Michele Bachmann for saying at a debate that he wanted “a humane” approach to the subject of illegal immigration which would avoid deporting families rooted in American communities. Trump signaled he liked Gingrich’s approach, agreeing with a Fox host’s description that it could be called amnesty.

“Well first of all he’s really talking about something where somebody has been in the country for 25 years, they’ve been educated here, they’re really tremendously performing people, and citizens, or not citizens depending — I guess he’s talking about if they become, or should they become, citizens,” Trump said. “The fact is he’s showing a lot of compassion. Now I know both of them, and they’re both very, very, good people. I like what Newt is saying to a certain extent. It’s a very limited thing, but he’s talking about people that have really been terrific people for this country for a long, long, period of time. He’s saying it’s very, very, tough to throw them out.

“I tell you, I know Michele,” said Trump. “And if you told Michele, ‘Go across the street. You see that family? They’ve been here, they’ve been really producers for this country for 25 years. They’re great people, their children are educated, their children are producers, you go tell that family to get out of here and get into their own country,’ I don’t think she could do it, because she’s a good person.”

114 Responses to “Trump Supported Amnesty, Part 5,000”

She will propose an incredibly generous amnesty, with almost no educational requirements (beyond the nebulous and ignored “learn English”) and a quickly-waived requirement that they pay back taxes and a penalty, and then soon enough they get their papers and their voter registrations all at once. Better yet, she’ll also fast-track the children who were brought in to this country illegally, so that they pretty much get citizenship in time to vote in the 2018 midterms.

He would perhaps tweak immigration policy to propose more high-skilled immigrants be let in without forcing us to take a whole bunch of low-skilled workers too, and maybe he would suggest tougher educational requirements (a high school diploma or GED along with some kind of vocational training) to qualify for citizenship, and he would probably be far more strict about demanding payment of taxes and penalties. Also, under him they really might have to “go to the end of the line” and perhaps they wouldn’t be voting until 2024 and their children would have to wait until after 2020.

But either way, the idea that they will be sent back to their home countries is now pretty much off the table, if it ever was truly on the table.

This blog post is just hilariously funny. Do you really expect anyone to believe that Trump would be better for illegal immigration than Clinton? Hahaha. So hilarious. Clinton will not support e-verify. She wants more illegal immigration because the votes go mostly democratic. Trump wants better border security too, and I don’t think he ever took a different position on that, and if he did then so what? People change.

Once supporting a tiny speck of compassionate amnesty does not prove that Trump would enhance illegal immigration more than Clinton would. Delusion is what’s going on here. Big time!

Trump may well be a charlatan, but that does not necessarily make him worse than Hillary Clinton on every single issue in the universe.

Incidentally, Patterico, the first two paragraphs of this comment just got me banned at Redstate. So open-minded they are these days. So tolerant.

This blog post is just hilariously funny. Do you really expect anyone to believe that Trump would be better for illegal immigration than Clinton? Hahaha. So hilarious.

Yes, I do, and I gave the argument why in the post. Laughing at it is not an argument.

As for the RedState ban, I have already said that I tolerate a lot more here than they do. So there, they may think that if someone comes along and wants to disingenuously ignore the actual point of the post (how Congress will react as opposed to what the candidate’s policy will be) and beat a straw man, maybe they think that adds no value and they whack you.

Me, I leave the comment and point out that you ignored my point. Easier for you to yuk it up that way.

Hillary will complete the liberal takeover of the judiciary. Then she will grant amnesty and open borders and the judiciary will back her up, and Congress will have nothing to say about it. I just cannot believe that you don’t see this.

Even in the unlikely event that Trump agrees to not deport anyone, it won’t make any difference, given that employment becomes impossible due to e-verify.

Hillary will complete the liberal takeover of the judiciary. Then she will grant amnesty and open borders and the judiciary will back her up, and Congress will have nothing to say about it. I just cannot believe that you don’t see this.

That opinion is hilariously funny. So you really expect anyone to believe that Congress will react to Hillary the same as they would react to Trump? Hahahahahaha. So hilarious. I can’t believe you can’t see how laughably wrong you are. Hahahahahahahaha.

AH-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does that feel like an argument, Andrew? Does that feel like I may disagree with you, but have treated you with respect, even if I might disagree with you? Or does it feel like I have been dismissive, not really grappled with your argument, and generally had the attitude of an asshole?

Pat, your blog post lacks all nuance. In some contexts “amnesty” may mean citizenship, in others it may merely mean non-deportation. In this particular context, Trump obviously meant the latter: “I guess to a certain extent, for a very limited number of people, it would be considered amnesty, but how do you tell a family that’s been here for 25 years to get out?”

I’ve just gotten the feeling over the last week or so that you’re willing to throw every bogus argument you can think of at Trump. And I honestly believe the result could be the opposite of everything you’ve purported to support for well over a decade.

Immigration has been one of the central issues of this campaign, and you’re basically saying to vote for Hillary because she’d be better on this issue. That’s just preposterous. I think you’re just bitter about Cruz.

weiner is a mcguffin, except in the way he was a conduit for wahhabi influence through his wife, also he was running the visible part of the get beck effort, but voldemort was apparently alerted by this investigation, and so he released his parademons, crossing metaphors here,

the infrastructure has been put in place, in davos, in aspen and other places, so red queen’s comments, actually are conventional wisdom, you saw what a scare brexit put into them, so they are trying again,

Also I hate hearing the mention of E-Verify. I can’t seem to get anyone to listen to this.

E-Verify does literally nothing. If you are an employer, and go through the E-Verify process, it does not matter what result comes up, whether the guy you hire is legal to work or not, the law allows you the right to continue to employ him.

E-Verify is totally fake. It does not prevent one illegal from being hired, and does not throw one illegal out of a job, regardless of the outcome. It absolves employers from any penalty for hiring illegals: in fact it prevents employers from ever finding out if the employee is illegal.

See, a little courtesy and respect gets me ignored. Your blog post is bs. The idea that Trump is a crypto-supporter of illegal immigration is bs. The notion that any supporter of national borders should vote for Hillary is bs. Go ahead and ban me. At least an didn’t call you an asshole (temptation notwithstanding).

Is this all about “don’t mess with Texas”? I doubt Texas is so bitter about the Cruz loss that they will just love another Democratic POTUS.

Kaus came around very late on Obama in 12 due to the divided government mechanism, pouncing on Romney’s slip in one of the debates (plus Ryan’s presence on the ticket) that he would be for some sort of comprehensive immigration reform. He hates touchback godfather “fence” Pence as it is.

Donald Trump expressed support for “amnesty” for some undocumented immigrants during a 2011 interview on Fox News.

Any normal person who hadn’t been especially propagandized by an evil government employees’ union would be, especially a limited amnesty like that described here.

What Trump did is he went all the way to an extreme, and added absurdities on top of it (to make sure nobody else would adopt the same platform), in order to win the nomination. He knew nobody would argue with him very much.

I’ll tell you this, though: if either President is going to propose amnesty, a GOP Congress is a lot more likely to fight it coming from her.

Hillary Clinton’s and Chuck Schumer’s strategy would be to go for passing it by getting a few Republican votes in the House, and using other legislation to make a deal.

A national identity card might possibly be used or attempted as a sweetener, with the argument it would prevent vote fraud and stop terrorism.

They would also leave some things unsettled so they’d be still be able to demonize Republicans in target groups..

If Trump proposed it, it would be sabotaged by Democrats with poison pill amendments the way Bush’s plan was in 2007.

They’d maybe try to pass a temporary – stress on temporary – suspension of many deportations, if Trump would not reinstate DACA.

As I have stated, this issue is likely to dominate American politics in the future, and will be more divisive than the Vietnam war, but not quite as much as slavery. I thought we were at 1844 in this election, but maybe it is more like 1848. It is going to break apart parties.

Maybe the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Texas Democratic Party, Eugene Locke, a Dallas lawyer, did, but LBJ didn’t.

If Locke did it, athe Governor Connally, who was Locke;s old college roommate, was part of the conspiracy, because he made the call that changed the parade route.

Of course, if Connally was part of a conspiracy, he didn’t know it. Locke may also have supplied LBJ a false reason to keep Connally out of the car with Kennedy. LBJ gave up, because he didn’t know the real reason (if this is correct) Becase he wasn’t part of the conspiracy. To LBJ, Locke or somebody said, Castro did it. If this is the case, Oswald was a last shot opportunity to kill the president after the original killers backed out.If this is the ase, Locke heard about Oswald from George de Mohrenschildt.

If this is the case, Oswald was told the “Red Cross” (his term for the KGB) wanted him to do it, and that would be why he sought the main Communist party lawyer.

If this is the case, the conspirators already had a lawyer for him lined up: former New York State Assemblyman Mark Lane. (They didn’t expect Oswald to get shot.) Yes, Mark Lane was part of the conspiracy if there was one.

If Oswald had missed, and escaped, they would have told JFK it was the John Birch Society.

Cruz Supporter (#30), I don’t hold Texas responsible for LBJ. After all, he stole his first election to the United States Senate, in 1948. So if Texas had its way he would have been stopped cold in his tracks.

well it would have had several affects, clay might have been to bring off a less bloody resolution than the civil war, likely he might not have taken santa ana’s bait, and gone to war with mexico, as a consequence much of the west coast wouldn’t be here, also these new territories brought these illconsidered compromises to the breakpoint, just some notions to consider,

final point for the night, those in the kgb saw how the okrana, had undermined a good deal of the czarist consensus, when it was discovered that some of the sr assasins had contacts with them, so they picked oswald because they knew he would create such a similar muddle in the american body politic, which is what happened,

Everyone who opposes Trump gets pushback. Most cave. I’m just going to say what I think. I’ve lasted this long. Who thinks they are going to intimidate me from continuing to do so with only three days left? Come on.

Pat, your blog post lacks all nuance. In some contexts “amnesty” may mean citizenship, in others it may merely mean non-deportation. In this particular context, Trump obviously meant the latter: “I guess to a certain extent, for a very limited number of people, it would be considered amnesty, but how do you tell a family that’s been here for 25 years to get out?”

I’ve just gotten the feeling over the last week or so that you’re willing to throw every bogus argument you can think of at Trump. And I honestly believe the result could be the opposite of everything you’ve purported to support for well over a decade.

Immigration has been one of the central issues of this campaign, and you’re basically saying to vote for Hillary because she’d be better on this issue. That’s just preposterous. I think you’re just bitter about Cruz.

Trump was in favor of deporting illegals during the campaign, supposedly. The rest of your post is more huffing and puffing mixed with psychoanalysis. Of course I’m upset about Cruz! Trump is shit. Cruz was not.

It’s not enjoyable to talk to you given your attitude and I will stop for a while now.

If elected, Trump would surely deport illegal aliens who are also criminals. As for the rest, most would leave due to unemployment because e-verify would becimplemented and enforced. Hillary wants to instead give them all work permits, and she wouldn’t give a damn if Congress authorizes it or not. Once she has SCOTUS packed, she would also argue that illegal immigrants deserve to vote per the Equal Protectuon Clause, again regardless of Congress. To suggest that people should vote against Trump because Hillary’s election would be more conducive to stopping and reversing illegal immigration is just nonsensical in my view. I suppose it’s possible Trump would wither and melt when he gets to DC, and become Chuck Schumer’s puppet, but I know for a certainty that Hillary would not succumb to the charms of Mitch McConnell.

It all depends on if Trump wants a second term. If he wants to show compassion towards the illegals and their scofflaw employers he’ll be primaries. The current Trump hating Republicans will turn into his allies and the Republican masses will primary him with Bachmann or someone.

Andrew, Lord love you, E-Verify is being implemented and enforced, in the way it was designed from the beginning to be: to allow businesses to legally hire illegals.

Everyone in Congress got what they wanted out of it. The factions that don’t object to illegal immigration got what they wanted, and the factions that like to pose for their constituents as opposing it got what they wanted.

Lord love you too. It is not illegal to employ illegals. It is explicitly legal to employ them, and explicitly illegal to do anything meaningful to avoid hiring them.

The laws are working as intended. The only employers who could be “scofflaws” would be those who know for a fact they are hiring illegals and do so deliberately. This is almost none of them, because the law does not allow employers to question documents, or ask prospective hires what their status is.

The laws are fake. Employers who hire illegals are in the vast majority of cases doing so legally, and in fact would liable if they refused to or took any meaningful step to identify potential hires as being illegal.

The fallacy of the argument that the GOP Congress is more likely to oppose an amnesty effort coming from Clinton than from Trump is that a Clinton Presidency makes the sustainability of a GOP Congress much more doubtful.

What kind of amnesty program do you think emerges from a Clinton Presidency and a Pelosi/Schumer Congress???

Gabriel (#58), under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, it is illegal for employers to knowingly hire or continue employing illegal aliens in the United States. Employers are not currently required to use everify nationwide, but Trump has said he would require it.

The assertion lacks foundation. Obama’s election has resulted in the loss of both the House and Senate to the GOP. The Senate may flip in ’16 but the House will not. The screeching harridan may well do more to destroy the Democrat party than Obama did. The House looks good until ’22, barring another round of undisciplined idiocy such as occurred under Hastert, the Senate map for the GOP in ’18 looks very good, much better than the ’16 map for Democrats.

The time for hand wringing was back in February and March when Trump’s KnowNothings were setting the stage for Clinton’s victory. The election was over when the Ship of Fools sailed on May 3.

While I’ve certainly heard about (and read a little about) LBJ’s “discovered!” ballots during the last minute of his hotly-contested 1948 Senate campaign, let’s not ignore the fact that Texas at that time was still a reliable Democrat state.
In fact, since the 17TH amendment was put into effect, Texas never had popularly elected a Republican US Senator until John Tower in the 1960s.

Most Republicans want to vote for Trump (or, more likely, to vote against Hillary). We know NeverTrump isn’t that powerful but NeverTrump conservatives like Patterico are important because they didn’t cave in for Hillary’s or Trump’s false promises.

Those same Republicans spend an awful lot of time beating up on the NeverTrumpers. I bet they will continue to do so after the election, instead of focusing on converting the ever-increasing majority of Democratic voters who actually voted for Hillary and Obama. That’s why, after the election, they should come back to the NeverTrump conservatives like Patterico who have real ideas to offer, instead of empty populist rhetoric.

If even a supremely flawed candidate like Hillary can win, any Democrat will win if the GOP sticks with populism.

@Andrew: the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, it is illegal for employers to knowingly hire or continue employing illegal aliens in the United States.

You better read the rest of that law. That “knowingly” part gives them all the out they need. It is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for an employer to do anything to try to find out if a potential hire is illegal. As long as employers are forbidden to ask, why would the alien tell them?

That’s why E-Verify does not tell you that a person is an illegal alien.

Seriously, read that manual I linked to. Every outcome of E-Verify allows an employer to legally continue employment.

The law is NOT being broken. The law has been DELIBERATELY set up to do the opposite of what people think it does.

Also, Connally was reported to have uttered “My god, they’re going to kill us ALL.

This lends credence of at least awareness if not complicity in any plot.

I think you mean credence to the ida of NO awareness.

Yes, he maybe did think theer could be an attack. The idea was around. JFL was actually wanrned not to go to Dallae by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright – of course (maybe deliberately) too late for there to be any chance that JFK would take his advice. JFK even talked about what a man with a rifle could do.

Locke might have told Connally. Except that it would be the John Birch Society.

Connally might have complicity, but not awareness. See pagee 24-25 of William Manchester’s “The death of a President. The issue was couched in terms of where JFK was going to speak, but a change in the destination also changed the parade route.

“It was within Bruno’s power to make the final decision on the spot, and later he was to live with the fact that had he insisted on the Women’s Building then the Dallas motorcade would not have passed beneath the Texas School Book Depositoty….The issue was bucked up to the white House, where the policy was still to appease Connally. On November 14, O’Donnell opted for the Trade Martm though the two-tierd head table was rejected…”

Footnote 1: The Warren Commission reported thatthe luncheon site was selected by the secret service with O’Donnell’s approval. This is incorrect. The decision was a political decision, made by politicians. Bruno was among the witnesses whom the Commission did not summon.

If this was a conspiracy, the Warren Commission helped cover it up, partly by creating some red herrings. Not any of its members, but Howard P. Willens, I think – there was one person who actually wrote most of the report. Or maybe it was somebody else who made it a mess.

The Warren Commissionn really got it wrong about the bullets. It concluded that only two bullets were fired, and if there was a third, it was between those two.

In reality the first bullet missed. The second bullet came five seconds later, and was the “magic bullet” that penetrated Connally and Kennedy and probably would have paralyzed him. The third bullet, about 3 seconds after that, killed Kennedy by shooting him in the head. Oswald’s aim was getting more accurate with each shot. The driver made the fatal mistake of slowing down at the sound of the first bullet. They are trained now to do just the opposite. In addition, the care and was moving away from Oswald practically in a straight line.

The Warren Commission only had the two neighboring shots in their timeline and said a third shot might have been between them. This raised a question of how Oswald could have fired three bullets so fast, although he could have becasuse you only need two intervals. Someone needs to check what they said. I think they had the actual second and third, although others later said the actual first and second. Or maybe their timeline was really messed up.

The Warren Commission wold also have gotten it all wrong how Connally was wounded if it hasadn’t been for Arlen Spector.

While I’ve certainly heard about (and read a little about) LBJ’s “discovered!” ballots during the last minute of his hotly-contested 1948 Senate campaign, let’s not ignore the fact that Texas at that time was still a reliable Democrat state.

This was in the primary.

it wasn’t so reliable in 1960, especially at the presidential level, and the election may been stolen, mainly by Eugene Locke. It was not possible to do a recount.

Eugene Locke boasted of his close ties to LBJ (although his actual ties were to Connally, whom he persuaded to resign as Secretary of the Navy and run for Governor of Texas in 1962) so much so
that he acquired the nickname “Lyndon Jr.”

He was later named Ambassador to Pakistan (think corruption and BCCI) and deputy Ambassador to South Vietnam (think the wrong figures that caused the surprise of the Tet Offensive) He resigned before the Tet Offensive to run for Governor of Texas (he had persuaded Connally not to run for re-election – at that time Texas has a 2-year gubernatorial term) but came in 5th in the Dem primary.

That was, I think, the end of his political career.

He ran a commercial with a jingle:

Eugene Locke should be Governor of Texas, the governor of Texas should be Eugene Locke.”

…that someone here (Ag80) still remembers. He said three years ago that he still can’t that stupid tune out of his head.

I’m not sure what this post is trying to tell people. I would imagine any reader here knows of Trump’s history as a Democrat and his previous support of Clinton and amnesty. The question is has he changed or is he just like the rest of the RINO party that every 4 years supports building a wall, but then immediately forgets to fund it when election day is over.

Gabriel (#84), I know very well that the current setup allows massive employment of illegal aliens. What I am saying is that Trump and a GOP Congress would quickly remedy that situation. You don’t have the send paddy wagons throughout the country to round up and deport; all you have to do is remove the employment problem, and people will seek employment elsewhere, e.g. in their home countries. If Patterico is waiting for a president to send out thousands of paddy wagons, the wait will be infinite. If Trump modified his position about paddy wagons, it’s because he realized that it’s impractical and that furthermore he could never get elected, and furthermore it’s completely unnecessary, and besides that he is quietly keeping the paddy wagon option open in case people somehow stay even after the employment magnet is turned off. Clinton and Trump are like night and day on this issue, and it is incredibly silly to think that voting for Clinton is a better way to stop and reverse illegal immigration.

That’s not how I see the video with Obama, Colonel. The video you posted, taken by some panting guy, cuts off at the words “The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential” and then cuts to Cavuto saying the person asking the question is illegal. But she’s not. Her family is. Here is the rest of the passage:

The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school…

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

Obama reframed the question to one he wanted to answer.

His answer is indeed disgraceful for not coming out and saying, clearly, that illegals should not vote. But let’s not make it into more than it really is.

What I am saying is that Trump and a GOP Congress would quickly remedy that situation. </blockquote. No, they wouldn't. And couldn't.

You don’t have the send paddy wagons throughout the country to round up and deport; all you have to do is remove the employment problem, and people will seek employment elsewhere, e.g. in their home countries.

This is about as nonsensical as you can get. It wouldn’t even begin to be effective untl many many businesses were shut down or at least had their bank accounts closed. Not the threat it wouild have to actually happen, on a massive scale.

Then people would hit on the idea of paying American citizens or permanent residents for the jobs illegal immigrants actually did.

How do you interpret the one from Powerlinr that MD posted, Patterico? Do you doubt that Obama and the Democrats aren’t doing everything they can to encourage non-citizens to vote? Is that what you’re saying? Help me understand.

Fining or S hutting down American-owned businesses that violate employment law would be a LOT more palatable to the public than mass roundups and deportations. Once you start getting serious about it, other businesses will take note. And the whole thing could pay for itself via seizing assets of the businesses in question.

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who recently named Merkel as her favorite world leader, has frequently indicated that acceptance of refugees is an important reaffirmation of America’s commitment to diversity. It is a reaffirmation of “who we are as Americans,” she has said, as if the American character is defined by its unlimited openness to diversity. To show the bipartisan nature of this commitment, Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has used the same phrase to explain his approval of the refugee program. In both cases, the clear implication is that America’s commitment to diversity outweighs considerations of national security. Indeed, in what can only be called a self-willed delusion, proponents of the refugee program seem to believe that their commitment to diversity makes us stronger and more secure as a nation, and that any opposition to the program is racist, xenophobic, and most particularly Islamophobic.”

Fining or Shutting down American-owned businesses that violate employment law would be a LOT more palatable to the public than mass roundups and deportations.

I thnk the Republican Party would lose support if taht started to happen. Talk about being anti-business!

It would be more palatable to Democratic voters – until it caused a recession. I don’t think anything like this would ever pass Cogress, except in a fit of absent-mindedness, and as soon as it started to take effect, it would be immediately repealed. If not, which ever party controls Congress can expect to see heav losses in the next election.

Once you start getting serious about it, other businesses will take note.

Except for really small ones. But people wuld find a way for somebody else to take the rap.

And the whole thing could pay for itself via seizing assets of the businesses in question.

White places will be “diverse enough” when all the white people are gone. Isn’t there a word for targeting a racial/cultural group for replacement?

When has a “diversity activist” ever campaigned to bring white people to any global place or institution that is non-white? Or for bringing other races into their own ancestral homeland?

The real white “privilege”: Open borders and “diversity” forced on All and Only white populations.

Predominantly Caucasian countries with Western Civilizational heritage are always singularly targeted for diversity. Nobody is talking about bringing 20 million Hispanics to Japan are they? There is ZERO diversity in Japan but they are Asian, not Caucasian. Nobody thinks transplanting 2 million middle easterners to central Africa is good because Africa is all Africans. How about we send China 2 million caucasians? Do ya think a country of over a billion people all about 5’6″ with black hair and yellow skin could use a little diversity?

But no, the successful Western based democracies that develop almost all the advances in humanity need diversity even though they are by the standards just laid out, diverse. Simply because they’re too damn white. Diversity is leftist code speak for anti white racism.

The United States was founded by, settled by, built by and fought or by almost exclusively Caucasians (and Christians but that’s another can of worms). That’s a fact whether or not you like it. We should be proud and secure in our heritage while at the same time welcoming to a controlled number of diverse people who want to join us on this historic trip. Not change us. Not conquer us or usurp our culture an society as it has developed, but to join us. Cast away what they are leaving and embrace what they have come to. America.

The only way we can be racist or can even be made racist is if these anti America leftists convince us that being born a Caucasian in our own country is racist. And if you’ve taken the time to look that’s precisely what they’re saying. Just watch YouTube under “White Privilege”.

Just a local case in point:

In LA, “Asian Americans are learning to deal with diversity”

“Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth.

African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column.
“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points”http://www.latimes.com/local/c…

I want to thank you Patterico, for this site and your patience during this crazy election season.
It seems almost like forever we’ve been at each other’s throats about Trump and Klinton and all the crap that is their campaign. You gave us a good forum and with only a couple exceptions threw nobody out. You’ve been fairer than fair and I thank you again. However this F’d up election goes I know all of us will say: God Bless America.

“Several well-funded organizations — including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP — are fighting efforts to prevent non-citizens from voting illegally in the upcoming presidential election. And the United States Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is helping them. On February 12, [2016] these groups filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal court seeking to reverse a recent decision by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Commission’s decision allows Kansas and other states, including Arizona and Georgia, to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens register to vote when they use a federally designed registration form. An initial hearing in the case is set for Monday afternoon, February 22 [2016]…

I want to thank you Patterico, for this site and your patience during this crazy election season.
It seems almost like forever we’ve been at each other’s throats about Trump and Klinton and all the crap that is their campaign. You gave us a good forum and with only a couple exceptions threw nobody out. You’ve been fairer than fair and I thank you again. However this F’d up election goes I know all of us will say: God Bless America.

Thanks very much for the kind words, Hoagie. They mean an AWFUL lot — coming from you especially. And in particular now, when I am feeling low and kind of beleaguered. I hope you’re doing well health-wise.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.